Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of expert system (AI) that matches or exceeds human cognitive capabilities throughout a large range of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to particular tasks. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, describes AGI that considerably goes beyond human cognitive abilities. AGI is thought about one of the meanings of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a main objective of AI research study and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 survey identified 72 active AGI research study and development tasks throughout 37 nations. [4]

The timeline for attaining AGI stays a topic of ongoing debate amongst researchers and experts. Since 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or decades; others maintain it might take a century or longer; a minority think it may never ever be accomplished; and another minority declares that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton has revealed issues about the quick progress towards AGI, suggesting it could be attained faster than many anticipate. [7]

There is argument on the precise meaning of AGI and regarding whether modern-day large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early types of AGI. [8] AGI is a typical subject in science fiction and futures studies. [9] [10]

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential danger. [11] [12] [13] Many professionals on AI have stated that alleviating the threat of human termination positioned by AGI ought to be a worldwide top priority. [14] [15] Others discover the advancement of AGI to be too remote to present such a risk. [16] [17]

Terminology

AGI is likewise referred to as strong AI, [18] [19] complete AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level intelligent AI, or basic intelligent action. [21]

Some academic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience life or consciousness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) has the ability to resolve one specific problem however lacks basic cognitive capabilities. [22] [19] Some scholastic sources utilize "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness nor have a mind in the very same sense as humans. [a]

Related ideas include artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical type of AGI that is far more normally smart than humans, [23] while the idea of transformative AI connects to AI having a large effect on society, for instance, similar to the agricultural or industrial transformation. [24]

A structure for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They define five levels of AGI: emerging, qualified, professional, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a competent AGI is specified as an AI that outperforms 50% of skilled adults in a wide variety of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is similarly specified however with a threshold of 100%. They consider large language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics

Various popular definitions of intelligence have been proposed. One of the leading proposals is the Turing test. However, there are other popular definitions, and some scientists disagree with the more popular techniques. [b]

Intelligence characteristics

Researchers generally hold that intelligence is needed to do all of the following: [27]

factor, usage strategy, solve puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability
represent knowledge, including typical sense understanding
plan
find out
- communicate in natural language
- if required, incorporate these skills in completion of any provided goal


Many interdisciplinary methods (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and decision making) think about additional qualities such as creativity (the capability to form unique mental images and concepts) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that display a lot of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated reasoning, choice assistance system, robot, evolutionary computation, intelligent representative). There is argument about whether contemporary AI systems possess them to a sufficient degree.

Physical traits

Other capabilities are thought about preferable in intelligent systems, as they may affect intelligence or help in its expression. These consist of: [30]

- the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and
- the ability to act (e.g. move and manipulate things, change place to check out, etc).


This includes the capability to detect and react to threat. [31]

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc) and the capability to act (e.g. move and control items, modification place to check out, and so on) can be desirable for some smart systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly needed for an entity to certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language designs (LLMs) may already be or end up being AGI. Even from a less optimistic viewpoint on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like form; being a silicon-based computational system suffices, offered it can process input (language) from the external world in location of human senses. This interpretation lines up with the understanding that AGI has actually never been proscribed a particular physical embodiment and thus does not demand a capacity for mobility or traditional "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests indicated to validate human-level AGI have been thought about, consisting of: [33] [34]

The concept of the test is that the machine has to attempt and pretend to be a man, by addressing concerns put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is fairly persuading. A substantial part of a jury, who need to not be professional about machines, must be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete problems

An issue is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is believed that in order to solve it, one would require to execute AGI, because the option is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]

There are many issues that have been conjectured to need basic intelligence to resolve as well as humans. Examples include computer system vision, natural language understanding, and handling unforeseen situations while fixing any real-world issue. [48] Even a particular job like translation needs a device to read and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), comprehend the context (knowledge), and consistently reproduce the author's initial intent (social intelligence). All of these issues need to be solved concurrently in order to reach human-level machine efficiency.

However, numerous of these tasks can now be carried out by contemporary big language designs. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has reached human-level efficiency on lots of criteria for reading understanding and visual thinking. [49]

History

Classical AI

Modern AI research study started in the mid-1950s. [50] The first generation of AI researchers were convinced that artificial basic intelligence was possible and that it would exist in just a few decades. [51] AI leader Herbert A. Simon composed in 1965: "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do." [52]

Their forecasts were the motivation for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers believed they might create by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a specialist [53] on the project of making HAL 9000 as practical as possible according to the consensus forecasts of the time. He stated in 1967, "Within a generation ... the issue of developing 'expert system' will substantially be solved". [54]

Several classical AI tasks, such as Doug Lenat's Cyc job (that started in 1984), and Allen Newell's Soar job, were directed at AGI.

However, in the early 1970s, it ended up being apparent that researchers had actually grossly underestimated the problem of the task. Funding companies became hesitant of AGI and put scientists under increasing pressure to produce beneficial "used AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project revived interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that consisted of AGI objectives like "bring on a table talk". [58] In reaction to this and the success of specialist systems, both industry and federal government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI marvelously collapsed in the late 1980s, and the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever satisfied. [60] For the second time in twenty years, AI researchers who forecasted the imminent achievement of AGI had actually been mistaken. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a credibility for making vain pledges. They ended up being reluctant to make predictions at all [d] and avoided reference of "human level" artificial intelligence for worry of being labeled "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research study

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI attained business success and academic respectability by concentrating on specific sub-problems where AI can produce proven outcomes and business applications, such as speech recognition and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now utilized extensively throughout the innovation market, and research study in this vein is heavily moneyed in both academic community and market. As of 2018 [upgrade], advancement in this field was thought about an emerging trend, and a mature stage was expected to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]

At the turn of the century, many traditional AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI might be developed by combining programs that solve different sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:

I am positive that this bottom-up path to expert system will one day meet the traditional top-down path over half method, ready to provide the real-world proficiency and the commonsense understanding that has been so frustratingly evasive in thinking programs. Fully smart makers will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven joining the 2 efforts. [65]

However, even at the time, this was challenged. For instance, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the sign grounding hypothesis by specifying:

The expectation has actually often been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way fulfill "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding considerations in this paper are valid, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is really just one viable path from sense to signs: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software level of a computer system will never ever be reached by this path (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we must even attempt to reach such a level, because it appears getting there would simply total up to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic meanings (therefore simply decreasing ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]

Modern artificial general intelligence research study

The term "synthetic general intelligence" was utilized as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a discussion of the ramifications of fully automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI representative maximises "the ability to satisfy goals in a wide variety of environments". [68] This kind of AGI, identified by the ability to maximise a mathematical definition of intelligence rather than show human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal expert system. [70]

The term AGI was re-introduced and promoted by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research activity in 2006 was described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and initial results". The first summertime school in AGI was organized in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The very first university course was given up 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT presented a course on AGI in 2018, arranged by Lex Fridman and including a variety of guest lecturers.

As of 2023 [update], a small number of computer system researchers are active in AGI research, and many contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, progressively more researchers are interested in open-ended knowing, [76] [77] which is the idea of enabling AI to continually learn and innovate like people do.

Feasibility

Since 2023, the development and potential accomplishment of AGI remains a subject of extreme argument within the AI community. While traditional consensus held that AGI was a remote goal, recent developments have led some scientists and industry figures to claim that early forms of AGI may already exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do". This forecast stopped working to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen believed that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century due to the fact that it would require "unforeseeable and fundamentally unpredictable developments" and a "clinically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf in between modern computing and human-level artificial intelligence is as broad as the gulf between existing area flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

An additional difficulty is the absence of clarity in defining what intelligence involves. Does it require awareness? Must it display the capability to set goals in addition to pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if model sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as preparation, reasoning, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence require clearly duplicating the brain and its specific professors? Does it require emotions? [81]

Most AI scientists believe strong AI can be achieved in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, reject the possibility of attaining strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who think human-level AI will be achieved, however that today level of development is such that a date can not precisely be predicted. [84] AI specialists' views on the expediency of AGI wax and subside. Four surveys carried out in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the median estimate amongst professionals for when they would be 50% confident AGI would get here was 2040 to 2050, depending on the poll, with the mean being 2081. Of the specialists, 16.5% answered with "never" when asked the exact same question but with a 90% confidence instead. [85] [86] Further present AGI development considerations can be found above Tests for verifying human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute discovered that "over [a] 60-year timespan there is a strong predisposition towards predicting the arrival of human-level AI as in between 15 and 25 years from the time the prediction was made". They examined 95 predictions made in between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will come about. [87]

In 2023, Microsoft scientists released an in-depth assessment of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, we believe that it could fairly be deemed an early (yet still incomplete) variation of a synthetic general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 surpasses 99% of people on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig wrote in 2023 that a considerable level of general intelligence has actually currently been achieved with frontier designs. They wrote that hesitation to this view comes from 4 main factors: a "healthy skepticism about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or methods", a "dedication to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "issue about the economic ramifications of AGI". [91]

2023 also marked the development of large multimodal models (big language designs capable of processing or generating multiple modalities such as text, audio, and images). [92]

In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the first of a series of models that "spend more time believing before they react". According to Mira Murati, this ability to think before responding represents a new, additional paradigm. It improves design outputs by investing more computing power when producing the answer, whereas the design scaling paradigm improves outputs by increasing the model size, training information and training calculate power. [93] [94]

An OpenAI employee, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the business had attained AGI, stating, "In my viewpoint, we have currently accomplished AGI and it's a lot more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "much better than any human at any job", it is "better than a lot of human beings at many tasks." He likewise dealt with criticisms that big language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their learning procedure to the scientific method of observing, assuming, and verifying. These statements have sparked argument, as they count on a broad and non-traditional meaning of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's designs demonstrate impressive flexibility, they may not fully satisfy this standard. Notably, Kazemi's remarks came soon after OpenAI got rid of "AGI" from the regards to its collaboration with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the company's strategic objectives. [95]

Timescales

Progress in expert system has actually historically gone through periods of fast development separated by periods when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were essential advances in hardware, software or both to produce area for more progress. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the hardware offered in the twentieth century was not enough to execute deep learning, which requires great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the intro to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that price quotes of the time required before a truly flexible AGI is constructed differ from ten years to over a century. As of 2007 [update], the consensus in the AGI research neighborhood seemed to be that the timeline gone over by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was possible. [103] Mainstream AI researchers have given a large range of opinions on whether progress will be this quick. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions found a bias towards forecasting that the beginning of AGI would take place within 16-26 years for modern-day and historic predictions alike. That paper has been slammed for how it categorized viewpoints as professional or non-expert. [104]

In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton established a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competitors with a top-5 test error rate of 15.3%, significantly better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the conventional approach utilized a weighted amount of scores from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was concerned as the preliminary ground-breaker of the current deep knowing wave. [105]

In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu carried out intelligence tests on publicly readily available and freely accessible weak AI such as Google AI, Apple's Siri, and others. At the optimum, these AIs reached an IQ value of about 47, which corresponds approximately to a six-year-old kid in first grade. An adult comes to about 100 on average. Similar tests were performed in 2014, with the IQ score reaching an optimum value of 27. [106] [107]

In 2020, OpenAI developed GPT-3, a language model efficient in performing lots of varied jobs without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat post, while there is consensus that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is thought about by some to be too advanced to be classified as a narrow AI system. [108]

In the very same year, Jason Rohrer utilized his GPT-3 account to establish a chatbot, and offered a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI asked for changes to the chatbot to comply with their security guidelines; Rohrer disconnected Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

In 2022, DeepMind developed Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of carrying out more than 600 different jobs. [110]

In 2023, Microsoft Research published a research study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it displayed more basic intelligence than previous AI designs and showed human-level efficiency in jobs covering multiple domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research sparked a dispute on whether GPT-4 might be considered an early, incomplete variation of synthetic general intelligence, emphasizing the need for more exploration and evaluation of such systems. [111]

In 2023, the AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton specified that: [112]

The concept that this things could really get smarter than people - a few individuals thought that, [...] But the majority of people believed it was way off. And I believed it was method off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years or perhaps longer away. Obviously, I no longer believe that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis likewise said that "The development in the last couple of years has actually been pretty amazing", which he sees no reason why it would decrease, expecting AGI within a years or even a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, stated his expectation that within five years, AI would can passing any test a minimum of along with people. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI staff member, approximated AGI by 2027 to be "strikingly possible". [115]

Whole brain emulation

While the development of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is considered the most promising course to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can serve as an alternative approach. With entire brain simulation, a brain model is constructed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and then copying and imitating it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation design need to be sufficiently loyal to the initial, so that it acts in practically the same way as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a type of brain simulation that is gone over in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study purposes. It has actually been gone over in artificial intelligence research study [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that might deliver the required in-depth understanding are improving rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] anticipates that a map of sufficient quality will end up being available on a comparable timescale to the computing power required to emulate it.

Early approximates

For low-level brain simulation, a really effective cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be needed, provided the huge amount of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells has on typical 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other neurons. The brain of a three-year-old kid has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, supporting by adulthood. Estimates differ for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] An estimate of the brain's processing power, based on an easy switch design for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil looked at various quotes for the hardware required to equal the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 computations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "computation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a measure used to rate existing supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be equivalent to 10 petaFLOPS, achieved in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He used this figure to anticipate the required hardware would be available sometime between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential development in computer power at the time of composing continued.

Current research

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded effort active from 2013 to 2023, has developed a particularly comprehensive and openly available atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, scientists from Duke University carried out a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.

Criticisms of simulation-based techniques

The synthetic neuron model assumed by Kurzweil and utilized in many present synthetic neural network executions is easy compared with biological nerve cells. A brain simulation would likely need to catch the detailed cellular behaviour of biological neurons, presently comprehended just in broad overview. The overhead introduced by complete modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical details of neural behaviour (particularly on a molecular scale) would require computational powers several orders of magnitude bigger than Kurzweil's quote. In addition, the estimates do not account for glial cells, which are known to play a function in cognitive processes. [125]

An essential criticism of the simulated brain technique stems from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is an essential element of human intelligence and is needed to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is right, any totally functional brain model will need to incorporate more than simply the neurons (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an alternative, but it is unidentified whether this would suffice.

Philosophical point of view

"Strong AI" as defined in philosophy

In 1980, philosopher John Searle coined the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese room argument. [128] He proposed a difference in between 2 hypotheses about artificial intelligence: [f]

Strong AI hypothesis: An expert system system can have "a mind" and "awareness".
Weak AI hypothesis: An expert system system can (only) act like it thinks and has a mind and consciousness.


The first one he called "strong" due to the fact that it makes a more powerful statement: it assumes something special has actually happened to the device that surpasses those abilities that we can test. The behaviour of a "weak AI" device would be specifically similar to a "strong AI" machine, however the latter would also have subjective mindful experience. This use is also typical in academic AI research study and textbooks. [129]

In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil utilize the term "strong AI" to imply "human level synthetic basic intelligence". [102] This is not the same as Searle's strong AI, unless it is presumed that consciousness is necessary for human-level AGI. Academic philosophers such as Searle do not think that holds true, and to most synthetic intelligence scientists the concern is out-of-scope. [130]

Mainstream AI is most interested in how a program behaves. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they do not care if you call it genuine or a simulation." [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no need to know if it really has mind - undoubtedly, there would be no chance to inform. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is comparable to the declaration "artificial general intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for approved, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for scholastic AI research, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are two various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have numerous significances, and some elements play substantial roles in sci-fi and the ethics of synthetic intelligence:

Sentience (or "extraordinary awareness"): The ability to "feel" understandings or feelings subjectively, as opposed to the ability to reason about perceptions. Some thinkers, such as David Chalmers, use the term "awareness" to refer exclusively to sensational awareness, which is approximately equivalent to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience develops is referred to as the hard issue of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel explained in 1974 that it "seems like" something to be conscious. If we are not conscious, then it does not seem like anything. Nagel uses the example of a bat: we can sensibly ask "what does it seem like to be a bat?" However, we are unlikely to ask "what does it feel like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat appears to be mindful (i.e., has awareness) but a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer declared that the company's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had attained life, though this claim was extensively challenged by other specialists. [135]

Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a different individual, especially to be purposely conscious of one's own thoughts. This is opposed to just being the "topic of one's thought"-an operating system or debugger is able to be "familiar with itself" (that is, to represent itself in the exact same method it represents whatever else)-however this is not what individuals normally mean when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]

These characteristics have a moral measurement. AI sentience would generate concerns of well-being and legal defense, likewise to animals. [136] Other elements of consciousness associated to cognitive abilities are likewise relevant to the principle of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to integrate innovative AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emerging issue. [138]

Benefits

AGI might have a wide range of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI might assist mitigate numerous problems on the planet such as appetite, poverty and health issues. [139]

AGI might improve productivity and effectiveness in the majority of tasks. For example, in public health, AGI might accelerate medical research study, especially against cancer. [140] It might take care of the senior, [141] and democratize access to quick, top quality medical diagnostics. It could offer enjoyable, cheap and individualized education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist could become outdated if the wealth produced is appropriately redistributed. [141] [142] This also raises the concern of the location of humans in a radically automated society.

AGI could likewise assist to make logical decisions, and to expect and avoid disasters. It might also assist to profit of possibly devastating innovations such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while preventing the associated dangers. [143] If an AGI's main objective is to prevent existential catastrophes such as human termination (which might be tough if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be true), [144] it could take measures to drastically minimize the dangers [143] while reducing the impact of these measures on our lifestyle.

Risks

Existential threats

AGI may represent multiple types of existential danger, which are dangers that threaten "the early termination of Earth-originating intelligent life or the long-term and extreme damage of its potential for preferable future advancement". [145] The risk of human termination from AGI has been the topic of numerous arguments, but there is also the possibility that the advancement of AGI would lead to a completely problematic future. Notably, it could be used to spread out and maintain the set of values of whoever establishes it. If mankind still has ethical blind spots similar to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, preventing ethical development. [146] Furthermore, AGI could help with mass security and brainwashing, which could be used to create a stable repressive around the world totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is also a threat for the machines themselves. If makers that are sentient or otherwise deserving of ethical factor to consider are mass created in the future, taking part in a civilizational path that forever overlooks their welfare and interests could be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI could enhance mankind's future and help minimize other existential threats, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for continuing with due care", not for "deserting AI". [147]

Risk of loss of control and human termination

The thesis that AI presents an existential threat for human beings, which this risk requires more attention, is controversial but has actually been backed in 2023 by lots of public figures, AI researchers and CEOs of AI business such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis and Sam Altman. [151] [152]

In 2014, Stephen Hawking slammed extensive indifference:

So, dealing with possible futures of enormous benefits and threats, the professionals are surely doing whatever possible to ensure the best result, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll show up in a few decades,' would we just respond, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is basically what is happening with AI. [153]

The potential fate of mankind has actually sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast specifies that greater intelligence permitted mankind to dominate gorillas, which are now susceptible in methods that they could not have anticipated. As an outcome, the gorilla has actually become a threatened types, not out of malice, however simply as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to control humankind and that we ought to beware not to anthropomorphize them and translate their intents as we would for humans. He said that individuals will not be "wise sufficient to design super-intelligent devices, yet unbelievably foolish to the point of providing it moronic objectives with no safeguards". [155] On the other side, the concept of crucial merging suggests that nearly whatever their goals, smart representatives will have reasons to try to make it through and acquire more power as intermediary steps to achieving these goals. And that this does not require having emotions. [156]

Many scholars who are worried about existential risk supporter for more research into fixing the "control issue" to answer the concern: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers execute to maximise the probability that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, instead of damaging, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is complicated by the AI arms race (which could cause a race to the bottom of security preventative measures in order to launch products before competitors), [159] and the use of AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can present existential threat also has detractors. Skeptics typically say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that concerns about AGI sidetrack from other concerns related to current AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for lots of people beyond the technology market, existing chatbots and LLMs are already viewed as though they were AGI, resulting in further misunderstanding and fear. [162]

Skeptics often charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an illogical belief in the possibility of superintelligence changing an irrational belief in an omnipotent God. [163] Some researchers think that the communication campaigns on AI existential danger by certain AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might be an at attempt at regulatory capture and to inflate interest in their products. [164] [165]

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, along with other industry leaders and researchers, issued a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the danger of termination from AI should be a worldwide priority together with other societal-scale dangers such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]

Mass joblessness

Researchers from OpenAI estimated that "80% of the U.S. workforce might have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the intro of LLMs, while around 19% of workers may see a minimum of 50% of their jobs impacted". [166] [167] They think about office workers to be the most exposed, for example mathematicians, accountants or web designers. [167] AGI could have a better autonomy, ability to make decisions, to interface with other computer tools, however also to control robotized bodies.

According to Stephen Hawking, the outcome of automation on the lifestyle will depend on how the wealth will be redistributed: [142]

Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or the majority of people can wind up miserably bad if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. Up until now, the pattern seems to be towards the 2nd choice, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

Elon Musk thinks about that the automation of society will need governments to adopt a universal basic earnings. [168]

See likewise

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities similar to those of the animal or human brain
AI impact
AI security - Research location on making AI safe and advantageous
AI alignment - AI conformance to the desired objective
A.I. Rising - 2018 film directed by Lazar Bodroža
Expert system
Automated artificial intelligence - Process of automating the application of machine learning
BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research effort revealed by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre
General game playing - Ability of expert system to play various video games
Generative expert system - AI system efficient in creating content in response to prompts
Human Brain Project - Scientific research study job
Intelligence amplification - Use of infotech to augment human intelligence (IA).
Machine principles - Moral behaviours of man-made makers.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task knowing - Solving several maker discovering tasks at the exact same time.
Neural scaling law - Statistical law in machine learning.
Outline of expert system - Overview of and topical guide to expert system.
Transhumanism - Philosophical movement.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or form of synthetic intelligence.
Transfer learning - Artificial intelligence method.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competition.
Hardware for synthetic intelligence - Hardware specially created and enhanced for expert system.
Weak expert system - Form of synthetic intelligence.


Notes

^ a b See below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the academic meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the short article Chinese space.
^ AI founder John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet define in basic what kinds of computational procedures we wish to call intelligent. " [26] (For a discussion of some definitions of intelligence used by artificial intelligence researchers, see philosophy of artificial intelligence.).
^ The Lighthill report particularly slammed AI's "grand goals" and led the taking apart of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA ended up being determined to fund only "mission-oriented direct research study, rather than fundamental undirected research". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy writes "it would be a great relief to the remainder of the workers in AI if the inventors of new general formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more guarded form than has actually sometimes been the case." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would approximately represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil introduced.
^ As defined in a basic AI book: "The assertion that machines could perhaps act wisely (or, perhaps better, act as if they were smart) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by theorists, and the assertion that devices that do so are in fact believing (rather than imitating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is synthetic narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is designed to carry out a single task.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our objective is to guarantee that synthetic general intelligence benefits all of humankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's new objective is developing synthetic general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to construct AI that is better than human-level at all of the human senses.
^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D tasks were determined as being active in 2020.
^ a b c "AI timelines: What do specialists in expert system anticipate for the future?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
^ Metz, Cade (15 May 2023). "Some Researchers Say A.I. Is Already Here, Stirring Debate in Tech Circles". The New York City Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023.
^ "AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton gives up Google and warns of risk ahead". The New York Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is hard to see how you can prevent the bad stars from using it for bad things.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early explores GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 shows stimulates of AGI.
^ Butler, Octavia E. (1993 ). Parable of the Sower. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4466-7550-5. All that you touch you change. All that you change changes you.
^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming.
^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Expert System". The New York Times. The real danger is not AI itself however the way we release it.
^ "Impressed by expert system? Experts state AGI is coming next, and it has 'existential' threats". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI could pose existential threats to humankind.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The first superintelligence will be the last invention that humanity requires to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. Mitigating the threat of extinction from AI should be an international top priority.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI specialists caution of danger of termination from AI.
^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York City Times. We are far from developing machines that can outthink us in basic methods.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not present an existential risk". Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential hazard.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the initial on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil explains strong AI as "maker intelligence with the full series of human intelligence.".
^ "The Age of Artificial Intelligence: bphomesteading.com George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the original on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they utilize for "human-level" intelligence in the physical symbol system hypothesis.
^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the initial on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
^ "What is artificial superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Artificial intelligence is changing our world - it is on everybody to make sure that it works out". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to attaining AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat.
^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of intelligent traits is based upon the topics covered by major AI books, consisting of: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998.
^ Johnson 1987.
^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York City: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body shapes the method we believe: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reconsidered: The concept of proficiency". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The principle of competence". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the original on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the initial on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What occurs when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ "Eugene Goostman is a real young boy - the Turing Test says so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ "Scientists contest whether computer 'Eugene Goostman' passed Turing test". BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). "People can not distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC]
^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI models like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing everything from the bar test to AP Biology. Here's a list of hard examinations both AI versions have passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Expert System Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Capitalize on It". Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is unreliable. The Winograd Schema is outdated. Coffee is the answer". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder suggested testing an AI chatbot's ability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to determine human-like intelligence". Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). "Mustafa Suleyman: My brand-new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Expert System" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Expert System (Second ed.). New York: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".).
^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Defining Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Artificial Intelligence, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 22 May 2013.
^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50.
^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). "Expert System, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the original on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
^ Simon 1965, p. 96 priced estimate in Crevier 1993, p. 109.
^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008.
^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), priced quote in Crevier (1993, p. 109).
^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994.
^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment".
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22.
^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see likewise Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212.
^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). "Respond to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007.
^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). "Behind Artificial Intelligence, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York City Times. Archived from the initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer scientists and software application engineers prevented the term expert system for fear of being deemed wild-eyed dreamers.
^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26
^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the initial on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20
^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300.
^ Gubrud 1997
^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Technology an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the initial on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ "Who created the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., by means of Life 3.0: 'The term "AGI" was popularized by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel'
^ Wang & Goertzel 2007
^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summer season school: June 22 - July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009". Archived from the original on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 - зимен триместър" [Elective courses 2010/2011 - winter season trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limits of machine intelligence: Despite progress in machine intelligence, artificial general intelligence is still a significant challenge". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ "Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing "Sparks" of AGI". Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023.
^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). "The Singularity Isn't Near". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Winfield, Alan. "Expert system will not turn into a Frankenstein's monster". The Guardian. Archived from the initial on 17 September 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Deane, George (2022 ). "Machines That Feel and Think: The Role of Affective Feelings and Mental Action in (Artificial) General Intelligence". Artificial Life. 28 (3 ): 289-309. doi:10.1162/ artl_a_00368. ISSN 1064-5462. PMID 35881678. S2CID 251069071.
^ a b c Clocksin 2003.
^ Fjelland, Ragnar (17 June 2020). "Why basic expert system will not be recognized". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1 ): 1-9. doi:10.1057/ s41599-020-0494-4. hdl:11250/ 2726984. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 219710554.
^ McCarthy 2007b.
^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (23 November 2015). "The Doomsday Invention: Will expert system bring us utopia or damage?". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future progress in synthetic intelligence: A study of professional viewpoint. In Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.
^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, modified by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia
^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023.
^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The originality of devices: AI takes the Torrance Test". Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185.
^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema.
^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). "Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024". Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
^ "Introducing OpenAI o1-preview". OpenAI. 12 September 2024.
^ Knight, Will. "OpenAI Announces a New AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024.
^ "OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved". Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024.
^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ "Next-Gen AI: OpenAI and Meta's Leap Towards Reasoning Machines". Unite.ai. 19 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ James, Alex P. (2022 ). "The Why, What, and How of Artificial General Intelligence Chip Development". IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. 14 (2 ): 333-347. arXiv:2012.06338. doi:10.1109/ TCDS.2021.3069871. ISSN 2379-8920. S2CID 228376556. Archived from the initial on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
^ Pei, Jing; Deng, Lei; Song, Sen; Zhao, Mingguo; Zhang, Youhui; Wu, Shuang; Wang, Guanrui; Zou, Zhe; Wu, Zhenzhi; He, Wei; Chen, Feng; Deng, Ning; Wu, Si; Wang, Yu; Wu, Yujie (2019 ). "Towards synthetic general intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture". Nature. 572 (